Recently Russ Archibald has been making predictions about the future of project management in 2010. He and I share the hope that we can measure the accuracy of his predictions together five years from now. I have less courage than Russ so I focus my vision of the future in 2050 when there is no chance I will be confronted with any errors I may have made. To see so far into the future, I find it helpful to look far into the past.

Homo Sapiens seems to be about 180 thousand years old. Many of the features of modern life are relatively recent additions that are not particularly consistent with our evolution. Until the invention of agriculture only a few thousand years ago, the tribe was the sole organizing force. Hunting and gathering were undertaken in an organized way but with a plan that was unique from one day to the next with collection of food as the culmination of each project.

With agriculture came specialization. Among the specialties that evolved was the role of “owner” which was vested in the person, family, or sub-group that won this role by virtue of either physical or intellectual superiority. Capitalism was born. Still, the farm was a flexible manufacturing facility that could be employed to produce a variety of crops so each season was planned for a specific purpose culminating in a harvest that marked the end of a project.

The invention of written language was a triumph of collaboration. Certainly it made no sense to insist that a certain squiggle of lines had a specific meaning unless the meaning was agreed among some group of people. Those who understood and were party to these agreements, or standards, became the first “technical experts” and their ability to communicate in writing set them apart from other mortals. Both their writings, and the language itself, were projects intended to establish and preserve competitive advantage.

As the planet became more crowded and civilizations became more cohesive, organized theft in the form of military conquest became a feature of human history. Each conquest was planned, organized, executed, controlled, and closed. A subservient indigenous population was the deliverable of a project. Ownership and the right to dictate organization, objectives, and activities became increasingly concentrated.

The industrial revolution brought further specialization and allowed the creation of much more sophisticated tools to supplement human effort. Ownership of these tools bestowed monumental power in the hands of a few. The tools were designed for very specific and limited activities. The steam driven pump extracted water from a coal mine; allowing miners to do their work more days. The effect was to ensure that all the coal was extracted from a mine as quickly as possible. Still, each mine was a project.

A funny thing happened in 1905. Henry Ford invented something we call mass production. Even more peculiar, in 1911 Frederick Taylor published a book purporting to be The Principles of Scientific Management. In this book, Taylor chose to document the highly concentrated power structure of Ford’s automobile industry. In this paradigm, ownership of iron mines, steel mills, and assembly lines bestowed dictatorial powers on a precious few. The hierarchical organization structure was necessary to pass direction from the few at the top to the many at the bottom. Communication flowed in only one direction. The tribe, at long last, was dead. Or, was it?

Mass production has brought immense wealth to human society. In addition to the plethora of things, it has nurtured a service economy that now rivals the product economy in size and importance. It has achieved this by creating a vast population of educated specialists, each capable of contributing to the creation of new wealth by virtue of the activity between a pair of ears. These specialists are competent, affluent, and picky. They are no longer interested by a black Model T. Instead, they want to participate in the design of their own car, computer, and wardrobe. Moreover, they want to participate in the design of their own education, information, and ideals. Suddenly, the capitalism rooted in the ownership of physical assets is endangered by a new capitalism rooted in education, skill, and talent.

This look at the past suggests that some trends are rather firmly established and very unlikely to be diverted in any significant way. Specialization will become ever more necessary as the body of knowledge about any subject continues to grow. Collaboration will continue to facilitate integration of diverse technologies to satisfy a continuously expanding demand for customized products and services. Value and complexity will continue to be inextricably linked and the management of complexity will make the greatest contribution to value. Karl Marx will be proven to have been absolutely right in insisting that the means of production should be the property of those who do the producing. In our era of intellectual capitalism, it is inescapable.

Given these trends, I suggest that the following will be true in 2050:

Project management will be called management, just as it was before 1905.
Management power and authority will be vested in teams rather than in individuals.
The project management tools we are currently documenting and developing will be tucked into the tool belt of nearly every project participant.
Employment will be reserved for those who lack education, skill, and talent.
Most effort will be temporary.
Most organization will be temporary.
Corporate executives will cease to exist. They will be replaced by teams composed of visionaries, recruiters, organizers, and promoters who form ad-hoc organizations in response to specific opportunities. These organizations will be perceived at inception as being temporary. These organizations will function collaboratively. Productivity will be measured in satisfied individual customers. Effectiveness will take precedence over efficiency. Educated, skilled, and talented people will be drawn to these organizations because it will be safer and more interesting. A career will be composed of a plethora of organizational involvements, each bringing both the opportunity to contribute and the opportunity to learn.